Social skills in D&D: checks or role-playing?

[barsoomcore]

You know, some of my most memorable gaming moments come from bad rolls just like that.

"Thirty orcs enter the chamber."

"I hide. Um. Behind the chair. And pretend I'm a turnip."

"Okay, fine, they, uh... roll a 1 on their Spot check. Thirty orcs are thoroughly taken in by your turnip impression."

I guarantee from then on, your gaming group will be exhorting each other to "Be a turnip!" every time they're trying to hide.

 

[woodelf]

If someone really wanted to just roll, and forgoe the possibility of getting a +2 circumstance mod that I might award fro good RP, I would let them. D&D has meticulous mechanics for simulating physical actions, but not social ones (i.e. there are "hit points" that an enemy can whittle away with battle, but no "Conviction Points" that they can deplete with argument, for example).

BTW, are you aware of Dynasties & Demagogues?

 

[woodelf]

but the fact is, if I wanted to play a game that was just about the combat and tactics, I'd play a wargame.

Or D&D3E. [/tone=sniping] ;-)

There's nothing wrong with playing D&D purely as a tactical game, of course. But you probably wouldn't enjoy my campaigns, and I probably wouldn't enjoy yours. The same is true of people who play RPGs as "theater," with no dice whatsoever; I wouldn't be terribly happy with that, either. It works for an occasional game--I've run D&D games with no combat, and no dice-rolling--but that's because the story happened to go that way, not because I decided "From now on we're acting, not playing a game!"

Don't forget that it's a spectrum, not a simple set of mutually-exclusive categories. You can decrease the tactical element without throwing it away completely. I'm sure there are people out there who play it with considerably less reliance on the nitty-gritty of the rules, while still staying well this side of "theater". And, there are games built specifically to lessen or eliminate that opposition: where playing more narratively and more by-the-rules are one and the same thing, 'cause the rules are focused around the story-ness, rather than the game-ness.

 

[woodelf]

I think too many players and DMs forget that this is a role-playing game. Many seem to think that this is theatre and, for some players and few DMs, that's not a fair assumption to make. The fact is, especially for new players, forcing them to try to act makes them uncomfortable and often times does little more than make the experience sour them.

[snip]
I will say that I've been told that my games are very role-play heavy and I think this is because I've found a good balance between rolling and role-playing... But this is a game in which random modifiers play a pivotal and necessary role and I think some of us forget that sometimes.

Sure, it's a game, as well as being about RPing. But you can't simply make a blanket statement about what degree of gameness is needed/desired, nor about what is entailed in getting to that point. I do agree that, within the specific context of D&D3E-by-the-book, the randomness is an essential element, and reliance on the character (as distinct from the player) is part of the play of the game. Though i've observed an interesting dichotomy when it comes to social and intellectual activities in D&D games: it seems to be fairly acceptable to limit a player's skills to her character's, but not the other way 'round. That is, most people expect someone playing an Int 7 character to not use their full intellect to solve problems that their character couldn't, but lots of people feel it wouldn't be any fun to solve the puzzle and capture the villain with some Knowledge (or other) rolls--even if the character is significantly more intelligent than the player, and the player clearly isn't going to figure it out. Ditto for social/charisma things. Mind you, i'm not necessarily disparaging this trend--i understand where it comes from: the game element, where there's no feel of challenge if all you have to do is roll the dice to accomplish the task--just think that it should be acknowledged.

Also, i don't think your analysis applies to RPGs in general--some are *much* more on the RPing side of the equation, due to having far vaguer/simpler/broader mechanics. Don't take this as a personal attack, but if you follow the techniques you espouse, i'd be surprised if your game was "very role-play heavy" by my standards. I agree with you about the tension between mechanical and narrative resolution, and specifically that in D&D3E (and moste D20 System games), increasing one necessitates decreasing the other, and thus the very fact that you consider the random modifiers to play a "pivotal and necessary role" means you're probably using them a lot more than i do.

 

[takyris]

I actually developed a set of rules for conversational battles -- the main goal being to break down the other person's conversation or argument points. It was flexible enough to handle legal arguments, political debates, interrogation of a acagey suspect, and courtship fencing. Used existing feats (taking the Persuasive feat gave you the conversation-combat equivalent of Power Attack, for example) in order to provide a conversational gambit that was just as stragetically oriented as physical combat. And it ended up that my players weren't really interested in it.

 

[CaptainCalico]

.

This is not to say that what you're describing is "bad" or "undesirable" in an RPG--but i bristle at referring to it as "roleplaying" or "role assumption". It's pure description, however flavorful or descriptive it might be. It's analogous to the writer's craft, not the actor's.

Interesting. From my perspective roleplaying is closer to group writing than improvisational acting. At least I find the experince more enjoyable, as both a DM and a player when the group is focused more on moving the story forward and less on a few virtuoso performances. (Granted I may have been scarred by a few encounters with "method actors" who did not know when to turn it off.) For me good roleplaying is less about talking in character, and more about making choices in character.

When I started my current campaign I told my players it would be socially-focused. Everyone responded by putting points into Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive etc. It would be unfair if I didn't let them roll checks for those skills. I award check bonuses for good strategy but the only award for good acting is the occasional "nice job" from a fellow player.

 

[Berandor]

Kahuna Burger:
There have been people as far to the 'improv' side as to say that they don't allow a sense motive check during a roleplayed bluff unless the player specificly asks for one.

Actually, I do that. But I calculate a result of a sense motive check as if the player was "taking 8" (taking 10 with -2 for trusting the NPC). I do that because calling for a roll will influence the way the player reacts afterwards; even if he consciously tries to "forget" the roll, he will act differently than he would have before. Perhaps only minorly differently, but perhaps majorly - in both directions (trusting the NPC more than would be normal, or less).

If the DM has decided that this is the big fight scene, they may be unwilling to let any level of diplomacy run them off track.

Yeah. I actually try to envision a non-combat resolution for most of my encounters, just so that I know beforehand how tough that would be and what it would require.

But one reason that some DMs don't like to roll for skill checks is so they can do the exact same thing socially.

One example for this from my current campaign:
The players met a character who wasn't quite honest with them. Now, his skills were way better than theirs, so I wasn't too worried.
One player casts "read mind", and the NPC rolls a 1 on his Will save!
So I let them in on the dishonesty. And you know what? They still don't know why he lied, and whether the NPC isn't a good guy still.

Just goes to prove that some game-breakers don't really break the game.

But this is a little off-topic, because nobody here went out and said they would determine results beforehand. I just wanted to show off, I guess

Back to topic:
Sometimes I don't roll (as with the sense motive above). I just determine what would be cool, if it's a minor action. If my tough mojh player (a draconic-looking being) wants to stare intimidatingly at some bar patrons, they will be intimidated, because rolling then only has the potential of ruining fun, and it's window dressing more or less.

Berandor